Tiger--the second coming....

[steve B]

Yeah, Hugh has had it made for years. And no pretense about being anthing he's not.

My point about Tiger not necessarily being good for golf is maybe a finer point, and maybe not even right. And none of it relates to his morality in any way. I'll try to be a bit more clear.

He's very good for promoters of tournaments. He's a great player, and getting closer all the time to having a legit claim as the best ever.

But fot the sport of golf? That's a different thing. And it's a hard thing to figure out. We may not know the answer for a very long time, maybe even beyond my lifetime. Super dominant players in ant era have the potential to be bad over all for the long term interests of the sport. I rarely watched golf in the past, and have tried it once. I've watched a bit more with Tiger competing. But how good are the other guys? And who are they? To a casual viewer, golf is Tiger and Just Tiger. And to a casual viewer he gets a bit boring. So I'm back to rarely watching since I can see the highlights on the news.

A few parallells are the US basketball teams for the olympics and other international tournaments. In 92 the team was unbelievably good. And their playing was a bit overdue since the rest of the world was getting big headed about beating an assortment of college kids that included guys that couldn't make the NBA. In 96 I got to see a game against China in person. I left after the game thinking I'd just watched a team put up 166 points an look bad doing it. At the time the NBA was riding high and considering expansion to Mexico and Japan. Add a bit of international dissapointment and a tattooed thug attitude and you've got what we have today. An NBA that has retreated from international expansion, and is somewhat struggling. International basketball has done better but not in anyplace that it didn't have a steady market. And part of that is that the incredible assortment of great players has been replaced by lebron and maybe a couple hundred guys that are barely known. I don't watch much basketball anymore, like the dream team II game, it's become a game of setting up a few set piece plays for one particular player.

The same thing could be said of parts of baseball. Just look at the AL east. it's been The Sox or Yankees for a very long time. If those teams weren't dominant (Either through big spending or better player choice) The fortunes of the other teams would be much better. I am a sox fan, and watch a good bit of baseball and get to maybe one game a year. And I'm happpy to see them playing in the playoffs so regularly. But I know the fans of Baltimore aren't so happy or engaged. And a team that isn't competetive isn't gaining as many new fans. They'll follow football or soccer or snowboarding or something else. So while it's been great, the Yankees/Sox rivalry and mutual dominance of the AL east hasn't been good for baseball in general. But it has been great for those owners.

Steve